TMO Controversy in the Six Nations: Scotland vs. France

Chris Colston
Feb 13, 2024
6 min read

Round 2 of the 2024 Six Nations has sparked controversy, with the TV Match Official (TMO) and referee Nic Berry facing criticism over a last-minute decision that denied Scotland a try and a potential victory.

What happened, and why is there so much frustration? In this blog, I aim to dissect the events that unfolded and explore the broader issues of officiating in both rugby and football.

Rugby players and the ball on the ground — Controversy at Murrayfield

What Went Down?

A TMO decision has reignited debate, leaving fans, players, and coaches in disbelief. The recent match between Scotland and France at Murrayfield became not just a battleground for the players but also for the officials, culminating in a contentious decision that has since dominated rugby discussions.

As the clock surpassed the 80-minute mark and Scotland trailed by four points, Sam Skinner's attempt at a score seemed to secure a dramatic victory for the hosts. However, the celebration was short-lived. Referee Nic Berry, after consulting with TMO Brian MacNeice, ruled that there was no conclusive evidence to overturn his initial 'no try' decision.

This verdict has sparked significant outcry, with Scotland's head coach, Gregor Townsend, voicing his confusion and dismay at the logic behind the TMO's reversal.

This incident has once again highlighted the significant influence and impact of TMO decisions in contemporary rugby. Townsend's perplexity was shared by co-captain Finn Russell, who, albeit without direct criticism, suggested a misjudgement. Not only did the decision deny Scotland a potential win, but it also underscored the vital role that technology and its interpretation play in determining the outcomes of sporting events.

Was it the Correct Decision?

When it comes to the TMO, they rely on two specific things: the TV angles available to them and the specific wording from the referee. It's crucial to remember that the referee on the pitch has the final say in the matter. The TMO and assistant referees are there to support and guide the referee to the correct decision, but ultimately, it is up to the referee, in this case, Nic Berry.

Nic Berry initially called it 'no try,' which sparked frustration since he was in a close position to observe whether the ball was grounded on the try line. However, because he called it 'no try,' the TMO had to find conclusive evidence that the ball was indeed grounded. The specific wording used by the referee is key because it dictates the likely outcome.

For instance, if the referee had asked, "Is there any reason the try cannot be awarded?" it would suggest that a try is likely, and the TMO would need to find overriding evidence that the ball was held up, knocked on, or didn't reach the line. Had the question been phrased this way, the try would most likely have been awarded, as there was no clear evidence to the contrary. For this reason, as frustrating as it may be for Scottish and rugby fans worldwide, the decision was correct because the TMO had to work with the angles provided.

What sparked frustration and disbelief among players and fans was that one TV angle appeared to show the ball was grounded. However, it wasn't clear and obvious enough for the TMO to be satisfied, despite initially stating there was a grounding.

Zoomed in picture of a rugby ball — Try or No Try?

There was hesitancy and a lot of pressure, as this decision would determine the game's outcome. The backlash has since raised questions about how the TMO interacts with the referee, what specific questions the referee is asking, and how a team of four professional referees (Referee, 2 Assistant Referees, TMO) couldn't unite to make what many believe was the correct decision: to award the try to Scotland.

How Damaging Is This?

It's easy for people to jump on the bandwagon soon after the event because emotions run high. However, it's fair to say that decisions like these don't favour the game. In my opinion, tight outcomes should favour the attacking team. It appeared to be a try, and we were supported by an angle that seemed good enough to warrant it - therefore, it should have been given.

It's worth noting that Rugby doesn't experience nearly as many officiating incidents as Football does. Rugby excels in every aspect, from clarity and methodology to accuracy. VAR, Football's equivalent of the TMO, incites controversy nearly every week with new issues or mistakes. While I tend to side with officials in most cases, it's undeniable that the standard of officiating is sometimes in question.

However, it's usually the methodology that falls short. The first issue is the respect for officials. Rugby officials are respected, enabling them to take control of the situation more easily, alleviating pressure and allowing officials to collaborate on making the correct call.

Unfortunately, in Football, where the stakes are incredibly high, the disrespect towards officials can be disgraceful. This is often exacerbated by pundits who are hypocritically negative about the desire for more technology to aid referees, yet later claim it is "killing the game." It's rare for Rugby officials to make significant errors, which isn't to say it happened this weekend, but many believe it did, leading to the outcry.

By the letter of the law, it was the correct decision because it couldn't be guaranteed as a try. However, how often have we seen tries awarded without absolute certainty?

Consistency is crucial in all sports. This raises the question of whether the interaction between the referee and the TMO should change. In Football, there's no transparency for fans inside and outside the stadium because the dialogue isn't shared, making it difficult to learn from mistakes.

In contrast, Rugby allows us to hear exactly what was discussed. The issue arises when the TMO seemingly reverses their initial decision after viewing the same angle as everyone else, yet claims it wasn't conclusive enough. We thought it was a try, as did most fans, and that should have been sufficient.

Rugby ball on the ground with a circle around it — More Angles Seemingly Showing the Ball Grounded

VAR is often criticised for making toe-nail length decisions that result in goals being disallowed, which, while tongue-in-cheek, underscores my belief that the benefit of the doubt should favour the attacker.

I'm all for accurate decisions, which is why goal-line technology is excellent—it eliminates any doubt about whether the ball crossed the line. But when decisions are incredibly close, like in the Murrayfield incident, and there's supporting evidence of a grounding, the try should be awarded.

However, if there were no angle at all and the referee asked, "Is there any reason the try cannot be given?" we'd be in a dilemma about why a try was awarded when it wasn't conclusively clear. It's a tough position, and I sympathise with referees, which is why I believe, by the letter of the law, the TMO made the correct call, despite popular opinion.

How Do We Improve This?

Improving transparency in communication is crucial for learning and improvement. This lack of transparency is a fundamental issue in Football officiating and VAR, where the absence of audible dialogue leads fans to speculate and sometimes accuse officials of corruption. Understanding why decisions are made allows us to analyse their correctness.

Rugby World might need to re-evaluate how tight calls are handled. The general consensus was that Scotland was unfairly denied a valid try without conclusive evidence. Although one TV angle seemed to show the ball grounded, it wasn't definitive by itself.

Another angle showed the ball level with the try line, suggesting it could have been grounded. A split-screen feature showing both angles simultaneously could be beneficial for officials, aiding them in making more informed decisions during close calls.

Scotland Left It Too Late

Asserting that Scotland shouldn't have left it until the last moment doesn't excuse the fact that the try should have been awarded at the end of the match. Indeed, Scotland could have secured their victory earlier and failed to capitalise in the second half when the game's pace plateaued. However, this doesn't detract from the fairness of the try that was not awarded.

With that said, there was ample opportunity for Finn Russell to pass the ball wide for a clear try. As Russell nobly stated post-game, the team cannot depend solely on a refereeing decision to dictate the game's outcome—they needed to perform better from the start.

Despite this, it doesn't change the fact that a legitimate try was denied, a sentiment France themselves would acknowledge, knowing they narrowly escaped defeat.

Technology Is Always Improving

Being a referee is challenging, evidenced by veteran referee Wayne Barnes' retirement following the World Cup final due to the undue pressure and abuse directed at him and his family. Such behaviour is unacceptable.

While referees strive to perform their best under high stakes, technological support must evolve to assist them as much as possible. However, as technology advances, so too should a clear framework for officiating and decision-making, where common sense prevails. I believe the benefit of the doubt should favour the attacking team. In cases where evidence strongly suggests a try or goal, encouragement rather than caution should be the guiding principle.

Sign up to my FREE Newsletter

Get the latest news and information on Bitcoin, Sport and Travel.